Larry Masinter wrote:
> Relative URI processing is entirely under the control of
> the data form or context that is providing the URI in the
> first place; e.g., an author of a HTML document may or
> may not choose to provide relative links within it.
Sure, if they don't mind taking on extra pain when they try to
maintain their site. It's a scalability thing: someone who
authors a large-scale corpus has pretty much got to use relative
links.
> Since
> DAV does not restrict itself to authoring HTML documents,
> any particular form of document at all, there is no particular
> reason why DAV resource processors need to deal with relative
> forms at all.
I disagree. Since relative links are so important for the way
people write content for the Web, it is vital that DAV
accommodate them. Making DAV collections correspond to the
syntax that relative links depend on will make it easier for
people to organize their content into DAV collections and write
relative links accordingly.
--
/====================================================================\
|John (Francis) Stracke |My opinions are my own.|S/MIME supported |
|Software Retrophrenologist|=========================================|
|Netscape Comm. Corp. | I'm not imaginary. I'm ontologically |
|francis@netscape.com | challenged. |
\====================================================================/
New area code for work number: 650